- Email: [email protected]
Lifestyles of private forest owners as an indication of social change
Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447 – 458 www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol
Lifestyles of private forest owners as an indication of social change Svantje Ziegenspeck, Ulf Ha¨rdter, Ulrich Schraml * Institute of Forest and Environmental Policy, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany Received 24 July 2003; received in revised form 28 January 2004; accepted 28 January 2004
Abstract Research about small scale forest owners is often dominated by a focus on forest owner’s professions. The sources of their income are expected to explain why people use their forest in the way they do it. Studies throughout Central Europe show that only a minority of the forest owners are still full-time farmers. Due to the increased mobility, many forest owners now live in cities, where they are engaged in urban lifestyles. The use of the forests by such urban-oriented forest owners might be better explained by the specific features of such urban lifestyles rather than the classical features of income and social status. Therefore, the article describes the lifestyle concept in a theoretical way and gives an outlook on the assumed situation of forest owners in Germany. It is discussed whether better understanding of forest owner lifestyles may promote policy extension within the forestry sector. Empirical evidence is drawn from two studies in the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg about the effect of changes in lifestyles on forest management. The first study analyses characteristics of one specific lifestyle, the farm forest owners in the Central Black Forest. It describes almost homogeneous social structures characterised by the identification via profession, roots in the region, low mobility and a high demand for independence. On the basis of some examples, a possibility to derive prognoses from the data is suggested. Furthermore, the output of the study is compared with the results of a survey that covered the situation of small scale forest owners in a much larger area integrating urban and rural regions. This second study gains a general overview on forest owner lifestyles in Baden-Wuerttemberg. It aims to classify forest owners by their urban orientation. The characteristics that were selected for the construction of a specific scale of urban orientation illustrate the extent in which their lifestyles can be considered as being urban-based. Therefore, the lifestyle ‘full-time farm forester’ can be compared with others with respect to the size of the group, its homogeneity and the average degree of urbanity. D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Lifestyles; Farm foresters; Urban foresters; Derivation of prognoses; Germany
1. Introduction The forest and its owners are expected to contribute for the development of rural areas. On various * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-761-203-3713; fax: +49-761203-3705. E-mail address: [email protected] (U. Schraml). 1389-9341/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.01.004
political levels, numerous political programmes rely on these contributions or rather try to promote them. The provision of wood, the attractiveness of the landscape as a basis for tourism and the security of the residents quality of life through the income and the organisation of recreational areas are all examples of high expectation (Koch and Rasmussen, 1998). To what extent the forest owners fulfil these expectations depends, among others, on the desire to harvest
448
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
and sell wood, what amount of time and money can be invested in the maintenance of the forest, and whether the maintenance is oriented towards the maximisation of income or, for example, towards recreational use. Consequently, the question concerning the development of personal goals or the owner’s attitude and its meaning for the treatment of the forests has often been examined (among others by Lee, 1997; Lo¨nnstedt, 1997; Judmann, 1998; Karpinnen, 1998). In the extensive literature concerning the objectives and attitudes of this category of forest owners, the large heterogeneity of their goals, attitudes and the behaviour have been impressively documented. The creation of this diversity has been explained by the impact of ‘social change.’ The professional and income situation of many forest owners has changed; this is often reflected in their increased spatial mobility. As a consequence their dependence on rural production processes, wood supply for example, have declined (Schaffner, 2001). Therefore, social change and the ensuing changes in the social situation of the forest owner are often considered as an impediment to accomplish the function fulfilment expected from forestry. In order to gain a better understanding of the impact of social change on forest management by small private forest owners; this article describes, using this foundation, the experience with the social structure analysis from private forest owners, incorporating two empirical studies. As a starting point, we describe the relatively homogenous social structure of farm foresters in the rural area of the Black Forest and suggest a possibility to derive prognoses from the data. The study will be compared with the results of a survey that covered the situation of small scale forest owners in a much larger area integrating urban and rural regions. On the basis of different theoretical approaches and these empirical data, the authors will assess the impact of social change on forestry development. The framework of the social structure analysis, a term recently popularised as ‘lifestyle’, is central to these considerations.
tional understanding of objective characteristics. These characteristics are mostly represented by a vertical organisation into strata and classes. However, at present the social structure of society is in a state of flux and development. A portrayal of social structures can, therefore, no longer be represented by a static snapshot of the social conditions. Therefore a new approach towards characterising the social structures has been developed. This theory of social change focuses on the causes, the course, and the prognostic changes of the social structure of society or of the singular social systems. A summary of the various theories can be found in Hradil (2001) and Scha¨fers (1998) or, in relation to forestry, in Schanz (1999). If one follows the supporters of modernisation theories, the deeply rooted transformation process of society in Central and Western Europe demonstrates (at least ex post) a clear direction. Extensive efforts are clearly noticeable through the innovation and reforms, which are held in place by the society’s foundation institution. The change is measured by the transformation of social institutions of the organisational system and the phenomena such as, bureaucratisation, urbanisation, democratisation and social mobility (Zapf, 1994; Zijderveld, 1998; Scha¨fers, 1998). The following processes have been indicated as the dominant development trends for social change of Germany and other comparable Central European countries:
2. Social change and lifestyle
These trends are summarised in the term of modernisation of social structure. Modernisation will not be seen as a development process, which is completely linear, exclusively seen as positive and completely internationally homogeneous. Social change takes place continuously with a different
2.1. Social change The social structure of a society or of a part of the society, such as forest owners, consists of a tradi-
. . . . .
The rationalisation and scientification of living conditions. The improvement of the standard of living and given social chances. The replacement of hard physical labour with mechanisation and automation. The division of the work and living space, or rather of work world and leisure time. Trend toward city settling and lifestyle forms and the related individualisation of lifestyle.
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
temporal and geographical dynamic, so that the shown developmental tendencies on the national and regional level can be observed in different developmental stages. Whether a society finds itself in a fast or a slow change is, therefore, not always completely clear. This is particularly so when singular parts of a society demonstrate different speeds of development. Thus, there are phenomena, which in the words of Pinder (1949) are referred to as the ‘simultaneousness of the non-simultaneous’. In the past and present people live in a traditional and modern manner to very different degrees. Additionally, group specific differences exist concerning the awareness of time, eras and the related lifestyle (Hradil, 2001; Scha¨fers, 1998). Especially, the spreading trend of city life, settling forms and the related behaviour, are in close interaction with the modernisation of the social structure. Cities and urban culture have always represented a breeding ground for societal developmental and innovative processes. Cities are simultaneously the strongest, influenced by these processes. The almost complete saturation of information technology, combined with strong interconnections through audio –visual media, means that the urban existence, as the modern form of life, is omnipresent. Nevertheless, noticeable differences still exist between urban and rural areas with respect to the population density, settlement and accessibility. Urban customs have left the city as their physical nucleus and are gradually spreading out. Social change affects all the people in a society, however, each in different ways. Therefore, it can no longer be assumed that residents of the same region show a similar sensitivity. 2.2. Lifestyle as a model The social structure within a society was categorised in the social sciences for a long time as the so called ‘strata analysis.’ This was developed by Theodor Geiger (1891 –1952) in the 1930s (Geiger, 1932). In this analysis, the population is divided into strata, where people with similar living conditions and similar inner psychological characteristics are grouped into one stratum. This model was well suited for describing, for example, the population of Germany until the 1950s. Wherein stratum
449
one belonged to was relatively easy to ascertain the given criteria profession, income, property, and social prestige. Instead of the old expression ‘stratum’ Oevermann (1993) for example uses the term ‘lifestyle’ and interprets this as the ‘anonymous, self-transformational, historically concrete, structural creation, which constructs itself as a contradictory whole from the compulsory decisions and an obligation to explain.’ Those members who belong to a certain lifestyle represent ‘in a subjective perspective the centralised autonomous units of practical trade.’ A lifestyle is constructed in the execution of decisions. An objective structure exists with these decisions, which, on one hand, excludes certain options of future trade but, on the other hand, opens up new ones. At the same time, there is no available estimation criteria for the correct or the incorrect choice, which makes the decision situation a crisis. In retrospect, there is always a reason for coming to a decision and the outcome will show whether or not it is reliable. Any person, who has ever had to make a decision, has been confronted with very certain challenges and life situations, which form a lifestyle. The society stratum membership is accurately established, on the basis of the actual function and/or activity. The model of lifestyles, or rather the former stratum analysis believes that people with similar living conditions, similar life experiences gather and are, therefore, similar in their personal structure. Typical categories for singular strata of a society were, for example, the ‘lower class,’ the ‘working class,’ ‘the farming community,’ ‘the bourgeoisie’ or ‘the elite’ (Dahrendorf, 1965). The classes were, therefore, relatively sharply divided from one another, which made itself evident among others by specific classlimited privileges or disadvantages. Here it is evident that the educational level and the consequential, usually inevitable, given profession function is an important class characteristic. Since the 1950s, or rather the 1960s, the wellknown social categories have disappeared in the course of social change. The reasons for this are the above-described repercussions of social change such as the increased social and spatial mobility, an extensive social security, and an increasing prosperity. The classes are beginning to merge into one another. However, society is still, in many respects, separable
450
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
Table 1 Schematic division of lifestyles (altered from Georg 1998: 98) Social situation
(a) Vertical characteristics: resources and restrictions . Income . Access to information . Status (b) Horizontal characteristics: social demographics . Age and sex . Region and living community
Mental level
. .
Life goals Value orientation and attitudes
Expressive behaviour
. . . .
Free time behaviour Apartment furnishings Clothes Interactive behaviour
into categories. Differences through social scientific studies must usually be arduously ‘created’, are not outwardly visible at a first glance and no longer match up to the old, well-known descriptions (Beck, 1986). Since the 1980s, due to the background in the German social structure analysis, the terms ‘lifestyle’ and ‘milieu’ have gained importance (Lu¨dtke, 1989; Schulze, 1992). The lifestyles are founded also on the distribution of resources and are, therefore, also vertically oriented like classes. They assume, however, in the framework of available resources, a horizontal freedom of choice. This is all above the freedom of an individual’s production. Lifestyle serves as the identity foundation and as the means of separation. No longer the internalisation of the outer circumstances, but rather the trivialisation of inner motives is now in the foreground (Georg, 1998). According to the dominant opinion, less and less professions are suitable as characteristics for a categorisation for the analysis of social structure. Material possessions and attitudes alone are regarded by some authors as insufficient. Rather than these characteristics, leisure time behaviour, clothes style and interior house design, which above all depict prestige significance and stylising customs, have been suggested (see Table 1). 2.3. Social change and lifestyle of private forest owners In the extensive literature about private forests, numerous categorisations, used to describe forest own-
ers, can be found. Dominant types of forest owners in the surveyed area define the approximate division. This will become clear in the division of industrial forest owners and non-industrial private forest owners (NIPFowners) in Scandinavia and the USA or the difference in farming and non-farming forest ownership in the German studies (Schraml, 2001). In further standardisations, developed from the empirical data basis, Schaffner (2001) reaches back to these three dimensions: (1) the management of forests (especially cultivation), (2) value orientation (social, economic, ecological) and (3) structure variables. The question, raised by current sociological literature, whether the social structures analysis should supplement socio-cultural components, like lifestyle, does not play a role in private forest research. However, as stated above, many arguments support the idea that the objective criteria, like profession or the individual income, have less and less influence on personal lifestyle. However, lifestyles influence actions (Hradil, 1996) and the historical changes of the private forest owner’s lifestyle seem worth pursuing. The private forest ownership, especially small private forest ownership in Germany was, up until the 1950s, usually connected with an agricultural enterprise (Abetz, 1955). In the interim, agriculture has been characterised by a continuous concentration process, which results in a decrease in the total number of agricultural businesses; numerous businesses are run part-time. Provided that the cultivation of agricultural areas were completely abandoned, agricultural and forestry business branches would
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
have to separate. According to several regional studies the majority of the small forest owners today are neither full-time nor part-time farmer or forester and their forest is not connected with self-managed farming (Schraml, 2003). With the disappearance of agriculture and the generational change into new professional fields, the change in the respective way of life continues. Only a few remaining private forest owners allow their related motives and behaviour to be assigned to the classical farmer class. When a farm is abandoned, the forest usually stays within the possession of the family. The new owners are faced with completely different circumstances, such as a change in location and social surroundings. However, both of these changes are accompanied by a clear adjustment in handed-down norms and value expectations. Interests and demands change not only in personal areas, but also in relation to forest ownership (Volz and Bieling, 1998). Especially the forestry-economical aspects of forest ownership increasingly loose meaning with this ‘new’ kind of landowner. A large part of the small private forest conveys the character of a ‘forestry wasteland’ (Volz, 2001), because the respective generation has distanced itself mentally, technically and spatially from its possession. In contrast, it has been determined that increasing numbers of forest owners have discovered their forest as a hobby and free time activity (Judmann, 1998). The lifestyles of the new private forest owners have proven to be very heterogeneous in every respect. This is also evident in their demands and goals of the forest property. The new, often seen as ‘urban,’ forest owners (although the term ‘urban’ should simply express the process of modernisation and urbanisation, not a spatial attachment to the city) do not allow for a concrete classification to a certain class. They can be found in (almost) all sectors of the population (Schraml and Ha¨rdter, 2002). In the course of social change, lifestyles go, as mentioned above, through a process of transformation. The knowledge of different forest owner types in terms of lifestyles—‘old’ types and new ones as well as the ones going through an actual transformation process—can be very rewarding regarding the possibility of making prognoses. This means, if a certain lifestyle can be determined exactly in its social structures, it must also be possible to forecast what will happen towards the behaviour of people, assuming
451
special inexperienced new situations occur or special changes in their everyday-life take place.
3. The classical structure: farm forest owners in the Central Black Forest The focal point of a research project by Ziegenspeck (2001) was an investigation of the farms in the Black Forest, which, due to the inheritance laws, have been handed down through generations for centuries. These farms, largely due to the (agricultural) structural change, find themselves in an existence crisis. The problem definition, which forms the basis of this research, was derived from an evaluation of the specific existence crisis situations and the previous research. The research project looks into the question of which structures characterise the lifestyle of the farmers and which principles in the way of prognostic information can be recommended or have to be considered to secure the existence of the farming forester, taking into consideration the variable of social lifestyle of farm forest owners. The area under investigation in the Central Black Forest covers approximately 1 660 km2. The research design of this study was divided into a qualitative and a quantitative empirical part. The purpose of the two-part concept was, in the first step, to analyse the quality of life and to generate appropriate hypotheses. In the second step, the determined typical lifestyle-structures were examined with regard to generalisations and used for verification. With the qualitative study, the ‘objective hermeneutics’ method was used. Under the term of objective hermeneutics, Oevermann et al. (1979) developed a reconstructive method of latent sense structure. The method of ‘objective hermeneutics’ belongs to the category of reconstructive methods, in opposite definition to the subsumtive process. From these interviews, with a so called ‘typological central case’ (a family that runs its farm as full-time enterprise) and many other case examples (e.g. a farm that was stroke massively a storm, a farm that is run as half-time enterprise, a farm that is run by a non-married farmer, a farm that is operated under ecological certification), the research was conducted as a structural analytical typification of the respective farm forester families and their lifestyles.
452
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
In the empirical statistical research part, the structure-hypotheses, generated using these cases, were submitted in the form of items of a written survey of a large farm forester collective. The socio-demographical statements from Table 2 clearly show that the 343 questioned farmers and foresters noticeably differ from the German (mostly ‘non-farming’) population. Besides the study offers results at further levels. First, how the structural scheme of the farm forester community is characterised, was determined. The lifestyle of the farm forestry community in the farming area of the Black Forest is very homogenous and is characterised above all by the following structures: a high need for self-sufficiency; a strong environmental conscience; a desire for an effective use of income; an increasing individualistic lifestyle; a high significance of cultural rationality; a high degree of attachment to the home region; the preference of a full-time farm orientation; and the need for acceptance of autonomy along with a very characteristic need for autonomy. Altogether, the main structure of this lifestyle can be determined as a high desire, and need of independence and a strong aspiration for selfsufficiency. In this context Table 3 clearly shows that above all in the full-time, but even in the part-time farms, forestry contributes a sizeable proportion to the income. In the research project of Ziegenspeck (2001) introduced here, prognoses and their meanings for
Table 2 Socio-demographical data of farm-foresters from the Central Black Forest (343 questioned) and the German Population (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2001), given in percentage
Family situation Single Married Divorced Widowed Other Number of Children Childless One Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children and more
Forest owner
Households in Germany
14 82 2 1 1
22 54 9 15 –
16 10 24 28 22
47 26 20 5 2
Table 3 Total division income from full-time and part-time farms from the Central Black Forest (mean values for both collectives (343 surveyed), given in percentage Sources of income
Full-time farms
Part-time farms
Forestry Agriculture Direct marketing Service sector Tourism Independent work Other
35.59 39.42 6.08 1.37 7.36 — 9.18
21.15 10.55 3.43 3.17 6.04 20.02 35.64
policy extension are derived from the social factor ‘lifestyle’ and by the special structures it is formed of. Proceeding from the determination of structural hypotheses a theoretical derivation is made, that states how the structures can possibly and on principle be considered in political thoughts and concepts. Some of the main prognoses deviated in the research project ‘farm foresters in the Black-Forest’ are listed below. 3.1. Warranty of autonomy Autonomy is one of the main characteristic values of the family farm foresters in the Black Forest. Any concepts, which deal with the existence situation of these families, do have, and this builds the prognosis, to consider this value. This means, that concepts have to contain elements that enable the families to run their farm in terms of a farreaching, greatest possible self-sufficiency. Political interventions from outside, that restrict the structure of autonomy, should rather be avoid or at least it can be stated, that prognosticly such restrictions minder the motivation of the families to go on with farming and silviculture. 3.2. Warranty of effective land-use Farm foresters cannot be ‘used’ to fulfil their ‘job’ as kind of a ‘cultural landscape maintenance employee’. One of the structures in the life of farm foresters, that could be detected, was the structure of expedient production. Farm foresters are motivated to fulfil an effective land-use with the purpose to
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
produce goods that can be sold. The prognosis is, therefore, that the element of using nature in an effective and reasonable (in terms of a land-use that answers the purpose) way is mandatory for the families and has to be considered in any concepts for securing their existence. 3.3. Steadiness and constancy of policy Running a farm has to do to a great part with taking risks. On the one hand, the farmers are very willing to accept this, especially if they earn self-sufficiency in return. On the other hand, the manager of a farm has to be able to calculate to a minimum these risks. Especially for the farm foresters in the Black Forest it
453
is most important to be able to calculate in long periods. This means as a prognosis also, that policy measures have to be implemented as kinds of longterm instruments that enable farm foresters to rely to a certain degree on them. The landowners must be enabled to make as reliable appraisals as possible about the development in the future. As far as the farmers are not convinced about the steadiness of a certain measure, they would not make appropriate adaptations. The gain of this new approach in the field of forest owner typology can be comprehensively described as following: This research project creates a better awareness and understanding of the farming forest owners’ mentality. Thereby, it supplies numerous, far-
Fig. 1. Urban Orientation of forest owners. Comparison of total sample, non-farming persons, full-time farmers and spare-time farmers on a scale with a range of values from 0 to 58.
454
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
reaching, safeguarded prognoses for possible outside interventions.
4. The new diversity: urban orientation of forest owners The second research project presented here aims in the long run to analyse the social structure of the (nonfarming) small private forest owners, focusing also urban oriented people. Specifically the extent of urbanisation of the small private forest owners as a new lifestyle dimension should be summarised qualitatively and quantitatively. The results will help to range in the presented data about farm foresters in the wider context of forest owner life styles in a larger region. The study covered the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg in total, an area of 35 751 km2, with an approximated 260 000 people owning private forests. A random sampling was drawn on the bases of the State Forest Service’s forest owner card index. The random sample (net) consisted of 1 111 persons with forest property in Baden-Wuerttemberg selected by indices from the map of the public forest management. Six hundred persons were interviewed which corresponds to an exhaustion of the net sample of 54%. In a first step, the examined persons were separated by means of suitable filter variables into farming and non-farming forest owners. 14.5% were identified as full-time farmers, 39% as part-time farmers and 46.5% as non-farming (‘civic’) forest owners. As mentioned before the empirical access to the until now to a large extent unexplored collective of ‘nonfarming’ forest owners was led by the theoretical remarks of modernisation and urbanisation. These factor complexes were consulted for the explanation of the specific reference of the non-farming forest owners to their forest. The realisation was made by the theory-led construction of a scale for the evaluation of urban orientation in order to realise a meaningful structuring of the investigated collective. The scale based on 29 items contained as specific questions in the questionnaire, which were added to the total scale after factor-analytic investigation. On the one hand, the particular items were deduced from theoretical consideration and inquiry, on the other hand deduced from the ‘Allensbacher Market and
Advertising Medium Analysis’ (Institut fuer Demoskopie Allensbach, 2001). In detail the items were assigned to the following characteristics: – – – – – – –
Characteristic: spatial/temporal mobility, Characteristic: spare time, Characteristic: education, Characteristic: interests, Characteristic: consumption, Characteristic: media and communication, and Personal characteristics.
First, it could be stated that the theoretically accepted continuum of urban orientation is existent within the entire investigation collective with sufficient normal distribution by a mean value of 20 (Fig. 1). Regarding the urban orientation of farming and non-farming forest owners significant differences result between these three person groups. Full-time farmers present themselves as a quite homogeneous collective on a rather low level (mean=15) of urban orientation. The non-farming forest owners feature urban orientation on a middle level (mean=22) and spread nearly over the whole possible range of scalevalues and, therefore can be characterised as a heterogeneous collective regarding the urban orientation. Part-time farmers at large take a middle position between full-time farmers and non-farmers (mean=19) but regarding their distribution of scale-values they also can be characterised as heterogeneous (Fig. 1, Table 4). For the purpose of further analysis the three examined person groups were divided in each case on the basis of their scale values into quartiles of different urban orientation. The classification represents four Table 4 Urban orientation of forest owners. Comparison of total sample, non-farming persons, full-time farmers and spare-time farmers on a scale with a range of values from 0 to 58
N Mean S.D. Range
Total sample
Non-farming persons
Full-time farmers
Spare-time farmers
522 20 9.07 46
243 22 9.27 46
75 15 7.41 32
204 19 8.56 41
Analysis of variance: significant differences of means between the groups on the P=0.000 level (d.f.=2, F=20.47).
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
successive intervals of the scale ‘Urban Orientation’ whereas in the interpretation the interval borders were regarded as floating and not as static (according to the theoretical continuum). Within the following discussion of selected results (regarding some special theoretical aspects) the four nuances of the scale ‘Urban Orientation’ were reduced to two groups of nonfarming forest owners: 1 ‘Non-farming forest owners with a rather low degree of urban orientation’—in brief: traditional forest owners (40% of all examined non-farming forest owners). 2 ‘Non-farming forest owners with an explicit degree of urban orientation’—in brief: urban forest owners (60% of all examined non-farming forest owners). Relating to the remarks of social development tendencies and changes within the collective ‘small scale forest owners’ these people are affected particularly by the impacts of social modernisation and urbanisation without having to live inevitably in the city (Schraml and Ha¨rdter, 2002). Within the investigation the presumption could be confirmed that the non-farming forest owners differ from the farming forest owners in their relationship with the own forests in various regards. This has to be considered particularly before the background that non-farming forest owners are able to put commitment for the forest property in any form into practise only during their spare time. Generally, spare time for these persons is time outside occupation, i.e. is reserved for private life and consumption and is thus particularly important for the personal well-being. Accordingly, they differ from the farming forest owners because production (in terms of occupation) and consumption (in terms of private life) are usually separated spatially and temporarily. As (countrywide) socio-cultural investigations confirm the organisation of spare time as well as the subjectively noticed extent of leisure time differ to a high degree depending upon age and income group. Despite strongly shortened weekly hours of work with employed persons in the age between 30 and 55 years the subjectively noticed extent of leisure-time usually is running short since it is taken up by many factors, e.g. family, friends, personal interests or leisure activities etc. and additionally by various personal obligations. At present,
455
however, the dominance of spending one’s leisure in an activity-oriented way is generally realised. Referring to this the income situation is also of importance for the mode of leisure activities (Scho¨b, 2000; Mu¨ller-Schneider, 2001). In reference to forest property, this means in the case of non-farming or ‘civic’ forest owners interest and commitment have to be seen in competition to the everyday factors of leisure activities. Apart from the usual distinction into farming and non-farming forest owners the latter were structured additional on their basis of their urban orientation. In this regard a significant statistic connection with the factors ‘age’ and ‘net income of the household’ exists (Ha¨rdter, 2003). Beyond that a close theoretically justified connection between urban orientation and the sphere of life spare-time exists (Mu¨ller-Schneider, 2001). Furthermore it cannot be presumed for the whole collective of non-farming forest owners that these persons lost interest and personal relation to their forest property in the whole. Quite contrary to this there are indices for a motivated and engaged relationship between non-farming forest owners and their property, independent of the respective degree of urban orientation. However, the relationship is usually not shaped in the classical forest-economical sense by pecuniary reward by means of wood production. Rather the picture confirmed is drawn in the theoretical frame of reference as an effect of social modernisation processes. Regarding the forest property of the non-farming owners (which represents in the ‘classic forest’ way a property for production) it could be realised that with an increasing degree of urban orientation an increasing dominance of the ethos of consumption over the ethos of work or production is involved. Thus with the majority of the examined non-farming forest owners the forest property changed from a property of production to a property of consumption with the purpose to primarily satisfy the individual, personal and emotional needs (recovery, nature protection, pride) of the owner. Further it should not be assumed that on the part of the nonfarming forest owners personal input and/or commitment for the ‘green’ property takes place from a ‘social’ or ‘common’ responsibility or can be motivated from ‘outside’. Financial expenditure and personal commitment may only be expected, if these either stay within a limit, serve as personal leisure
456
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
activities or get adopted by third persons or institutions. In principle, time and money can be regarded as the two central resources of the non-farming forest owners. Therefore, the forest property competes against other spheres of everyday life, respectively, leisure time for time and money.
5. Conclusions The idea that social change can provide an important explanation for the social structure of forest owners and its change has long been developing in forest policy research. Above all, behavioural and attitudinal structure have a big influence on how forests are handled by the owners and what forestry achieves for the development of the rural areas. The research so far observes above all the change from an agrarian lifestyle of the forest owners to ‘non-farm’ forms of living and refers to the comparison between agriculturalists and nonagriculturalists. From the contribution of empirical research about the forest owners, the authors have determined that a one-sided orientation towards professions in the description of forest owners creates unsatisfactory results. The research shows unanimously that only a small part of the forest owners get their income from forestry or agriculture. The criteria of forest owners‘ urbanity show a high diversity in important characteristics like receiving information and time budgeting, which can be accepted as prerequisite for the personal management of forests and the implementation of political programmes (Bittner and Ha¨rdter, 2003). Primarily as for time budgeting it is important to distinguish between farmers and non-farmers. Nonfarmers are able to care about their forest only in spare time. For these persons spare time is normally out of occupation, i.e. it is reserved to private life, recreation and consumption (which often means the same) and is therefore important for personal well-being. Analogical these people differ from farmers due to the fact that production (in terms of occupation) and consumption, respectively, private life and recreation are separated spatiotemporal. The form and amount of spending one’s spare time depend on facts as age of life, occupation, education, income and last but not
least modernisation of everyday life (Mu¨ llerSchneider, 2001). The analyses also show that a distinction is necessary. The study about the farm foresters in the Central Black Forest illustrates a high regional significance of wood production income in a certain group. The existential dependence on wood production exists here, which also reflects the lifestyle of those surveyed. The lifestyles are not completely freely chosen, but rather are specified by the profession, for example the dependence on family labour or limited mobility due to farm work. The authors believe that the term lifestyle, which became popular in sociology during the 1980s and 1990s, seems well suited for describing, also from a horizontal perspective, the structure and for creating different statements about the social structure of forest owners and even about ‘traditional’ and ‘urban’ structures. When one wants to describe or influence forestry practice on the basis of manners and attitudes, research about forest owners is of fundamental importance. Lifestyles are action theory based and, therefore, especially well suited for explaining how good forestry or other forms of forest practice fits into the life of a forest owner (Bittner and Ha¨rdter, 2003). If necessary, they would prefer this to a pure attitude analysis, which for example would emphasise the protection or use orientation and would use this to derive a forest practice. This brings up the question of the reproduction of lifestyles. One challenge, which due to the strong correlation between the lifestyle of farm foresters and the achievement of the political goals, aims for a mid-range retention of cultural landscapes. The presented research about the lifestyles of the farm forester describes the enormous effort of those affected to, when not conserve, at least reform the farm forester lifestyle to preserve it for the next generation. When the active efforts of many forest owners, classified as having a strongly urban oriented lifestyle are hardly perceptible, many forest owners refer to their own socialisation in the farming family. This explains, for example, the positive attitude towards wood use. The analysis of the lifestyles simultaneously produces evidence as to why the increased mobility leads to an absence of time in the daily or annual routine for forest management. These are starting points for practical forest policy to
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
formulate programmes, which suit the lifestyles of the forest owners.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the Ministry of Food and Rural Areas Baden-Wuerttemberg (MLR) for funding the studies.
References Abetz, K., 1955. Ba¨uerliche Waldwirtschaft Paul Parey, Berlin. Beck, U., 1986. Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Edition Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. Bittner, A., Ha¨rdter, U., 2003. Empirische Realita¨t und Modellierung motivationaler Bedingungen informationeller forstpolitischer Instrumente im nichtba¨ uerlichen Kleinprivatwald. Allgemeine Forst und Jagd Zeitschrift, in press. Dahrendorf, R., 1965. Gesellschaft und Demokratie in Deutschland. Piper, Mu¨nchen. Geiger, Th., 1932. Die soziale Schichtung des deutschen Volkes: Soziographischer Versuch auf statistischer Grundlage. Enke, Stuttgart. Georg, W., 1998. Soziale Lage und Lebensstil: eine Typologie. Leske und Budrich, Opladen. Ha¨rdter, U., 2003. Nichtba¨uerliche Waldbesitzer – Strukturierung und Charakterisierung im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungstrends. In: Schraml, U., Volz, K.-R. (Eds.): Urbane Waldbesitzer-Studien zur Beratung und Betreuung im nichtba¨uerlichen Kleinprivatwald. Freiburger Schriften zur Forstund Umweltpolitik Institut fu¨r Forstpolitik, Albert-LudwigsUniversita¨t Freiburg, Band 1. Freiburg, pp. 25 – 83. Hradil, S., 1996. Sozialstruktur und Kultur. Fragen und Antworten zu einem schwierigen Verha¨ltnis. In: Schwenk, O.G. (Ed.), Lebensstil zwischen Sozialstrukturanalyse und Kulturwissenschaft Vol. 7. Leske u. Budrich, Opladen, pp. 14 – 30. Schriftenreihe ‘Sozialstrukturanalyse’. Hradil, S., 2001. Sozialer Wandel. Gesellschaftliche Entwicklungstrends. In: Scha¨fers, B., Zapf, W. (Eds.), Handwo¨rterbuch zur Gesellschaft Deutschlands. Lizenzausgabe fu¨r die Bundeszentrale fu¨r politische Bildung, Bonn. Leske u. Budrich, Opladen, pp. 642 – 653. Institut fuer Demoskopie Allensbach (Ed.), 2001. Allensbacher Marktanalyse, Werbetraegeranalyse (AWA 2000). Allensbach. Judmann, F., 1998. Die Einstellung von Kleinprivatwaldeigentu¨mern zu ihrem Wald. Eine vergleichende Studie zwischen Baden-Wu¨rttemberg und dem US-Bundesstaat Pennsylvania. Diss. Univ. Freiburg. Karpinnen, H., 1998. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica 32 (1), 43 – 59. Koch, N.E., Rasmussen, J.N., 1998. Forestry in the Context of
457
Rural Development: Final Report of COST Action E 3. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Horsholm. Lee, K.J., 1997. Hedonic estimation of forest amenity values of non-industrial private landowners. Diss. Univ. North Carolina, Raleigh. Lo¨nnstedt, L., 1997. Non-industrial private forest owner’s decision process: a qualitative study about goals, time perspective, opportunities and alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 12 (3), 302 – 310. Lu¨dtke, H., 1989. Expressive Ungleichheit. Zur Soziologie der Lebensstile. Leske u. Budrich, Opladen. Mu¨ller-Schneider, Th., 2001. Freizeit und Erholung. In: Scha¨fers, W., Zapf, W. (Eds.), Handwo¨rterbuch zur Gesellschaft Deutschlands. Lizenzausgabe fu¨r die Bundeszentrale fu¨r politische Bildung, Bonn. Leske u. Budrich, Opladen, pp. 227 – 237. Oevermann, U., Allert, T., Konau, E., Krambeck, J., 1979. In: Soeffner, H.G. (Ed.), Die Methodologie einer ‘objektiven Hermeneutik’ und ihre allgemeine forschungslogische Bedeutung in den Sozialwissenschaften. Interpretative Verfahren in Sozialund Textwissenschaften. Stuttgart, pp. 352 – 434. Oevermann, U., 1993. Wirklichkeit im Deutungsprozeß. In: Jung, Th., Mu¨ller-Dohm, St. (Eds.), Verstehen und Methoden in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Pinder, W., 1949. Aussagen zur Kunst. Gesammelt von Hildegard v. Barloewen. Ma¨ander, Mu¨nchen, pp. 1993 Reprint of the edition Ko¨ln 1949. Scha¨fers, B., 1998. Sozialstruktur und sozialer Wandel in Deutschland. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart. Schaffner, S., 2001. Realisierung von Holzvorra¨ten im Kleinprivatwald – Typen von Kleinprivatwaldbesitzern und deren Verhalten bezu¨glich Waldbewirtschaftung und Nutzungsaufkommen. Diss. Techn. Univ. Mu¨nchen. Schanz, H., 1999. Social changes and forestry. In: Pelkonen P., Pitkanen A., Schmidt P., Oesten G., Piussi P., Rojas E. (Eds.), Forestry in changing societies in Europe. Part 1, pp. 59 – 82. Scho¨b, A., 2000. Gesellschaftliche Beteiligung und Freizeit. Statistisches Bundesamt: Datenreport 1999. Bundeszentrale fu¨r politische Bildung, Bonn. Schraml, U., 2001. Diskurs u¨ber Eigentum – eine Tradition des Verneinens. Discourse about property – a tradition of negations. Forst und Holz 22, 726 – 729. Schraml, U., Ha¨rdter, U., 2002. Urbanita¨t von Waldbesitzern und von Personen ohne Waldeigentum. Folgerungen aus einer Bevo¨lkerungsbefragung in Deutschland. Allgemeine Forst und Jagd Zeitschrift 173 (7/8), 140 – 146. Schraml, U., 2003. Urbane Waldbesitzer in Forschung und Forstpolitik. In: Schraml, U., Volz, K.R. (Eds.), Urbane Waldbesitzer. Studien zur Beratung und Betreuung im nichtba¨uerlichen Kleinprivatwald, Freiburger Schriften zur Forst- und Umweltpolitik Vol. 1. Verlag Dr. Kessel, Remagen, pp. 1 – 25. Schulze, G., 1992. Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart. Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt/M. Statistisches Bundesamt, 2001. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2001 fu¨r die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel. Volz, K.-R., Bieling, A., 1998. Zur Soziologie des Kleinprivatwaldes. Forst und Holz 3, 67 – 71.
458
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
Volz, K.-R., 2001. Wem geho¨rt eigentlich der Wald? Der Bu¨rger im Staat. Der deutsche Wald. Landeszentrale fu¨r politische Bildung, Baden-Wu¨rttemberg 1, 51 – 58. Zapf, W., 1994. Modernisierung, Wohlfahrtsentwicklung und Transformation. Edition Sigma, Berlin. Ziegenspeck, S., 2001. Die Lebenspraxis der Waldbauern. Eine Untersuchung der waldba¨uerlichen Lebenspraxis im Gebiet
der geschlossenen Hofgu¨ter des Schwarzwaldes sowie die Ableitung von Prognosen fu¨r politische Existenzsicherungskonzepte. Diss. Univ. Freiburg. Zijderveld, A.C., 1998. A Theory of Urbanity – The Economic and Civic Culture of Cities. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Lifestyles of private forest owners as an indication of social change Svantje Ziegenspeck, Ulf Ha¨rdter, Ulrich Schraml * Institute of Forest and Environmental Policy, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany Received 24 July 2003; received in revised form 28 January 2004; accepted 28 January 2004
Abstract Research about small scale forest owners is often dominated by a focus on forest owner’s professions. The sources of their income are expected to explain why people use their forest in the way they do it. Studies throughout Central Europe show that only a minority of the forest owners are still full-time farmers. Due to the increased mobility, many forest owners now live in cities, where they are engaged in urban lifestyles. The use of the forests by such urban-oriented forest owners might be better explained by the specific features of such urban lifestyles rather than the classical features of income and social status. Therefore, the article describes the lifestyle concept in a theoretical way and gives an outlook on the assumed situation of forest owners in Germany. It is discussed whether better understanding of forest owner lifestyles may promote policy extension within the forestry sector. Empirical evidence is drawn from two studies in the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg about the effect of changes in lifestyles on forest management. The first study analyses characteristics of one specific lifestyle, the farm forest owners in the Central Black Forest. It describes almost homogeneous social structures characterised by the identification via profession, roots in the region, low mobility and a high demand for independence. On the basis of some examples, a possibility to derive prognoses from the data is suggested. Furthermore, the output of the study is compared with the results of a survey that covered the situation of small scale forest owners in a much larger area integrating urban and rural regions. This second study gains a general overview on forest owner lifestyles in Baden-Wuerttemberg. It aims to classify forest owners by their urban orientation. The characteristics that were selected for the construction of a specific scale of urban orientation illustrate the extent in which their lifestyles can be considered as being urban-based. Therefore, the lifestyle ‘full-time farm forester’ can be compared with others with respect to the size of the group, its homogeneity and the average degree of urbanity. D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Lifestyles; Farm foresters; Urban foresters; Derivation of prognoses; Germany
1. Introduction The forest and its owners are expected to contribute for the development of rural areas. On various * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-761-203-3713; fax: +49-761203-3705. E-mail address: [email protected] (U. Schraml). 1389-9341/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.01.004
political levels, numerous political programmes rely on these contributions or rather try to promote them. The provision of wood, the attractiveness of the landscape as a basis for tourism and the security of the residents quality of life through the income and the organisation of recreational areas are all examples of high expectation (Koch and Rasmussen, 1998). To what extent the forest owners fulfil these expectations depends, among others, on the desire to harvest
448
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
and sell wood, what amount of time and money can be invested in the maintenance of the forest, and whether the maintenance is oriented towards the maximisation of income or, for example, towards recreational use. Consequently, the question concerning the development of personal goals or the owner’s attitude and its meaning for the treatment of the forests has often been examined (among others by Lee, 1997; Lo¨nnstedt, 1997; Judmann, 1998; Karpinnen, 1998). In the extensive literature concerning the objectives and attitudes of this category of forest owners, the large heterogeneity of their goals, attitudes and the behaviour have been impressively documented. The creation of this diversity has been explained by the impact of ‘social change.’ The professional and income situation of many forest owners has changed; this is often reflected in their increased spatial mobility. As a consequence their dependence on rural production processes, wood supply for example, have declined (Schaffner, 2001). Therefore, social change and the ensuing changes in the social situation of the forest owner are often considered as an impediment to accomplish the function fulfilment expected from forestry. In order to gain a better understanding of the impact of social change on forest management by small private forest owners; this article describes, using this foundation, the experience with the social structure analysis from private forest owners, incorporating two empirical studies. As a starting point, we describe the relatively homogenous social structure of farm foresters in the rural area of the Black Forest and suggest a possibility to derive prognoses from the data. The study will be compared with the results of a survey that covered the situation of small scale forest owners in a much larger area integrating urban and rural regions. On the basis of different theoretical approaches and these empirical data, the authors will assess the impact of social change on forestry development. The framework of the social structure analysis, a term recently popularised as ‘lifestyle’, is central to these considerations.
tional understanding of objective characteristics. These characteristics are mostly represented by a vertical organisation into strata and classes. However, at present the social structure of society is in a state of flux and development. A portrayal of social structures can, therefore, no longer be represented by a static snapshot of the social conditions. Therefore a new approach towards characterising the social structures has been developed. This theory of social change focuses on the causes, the course, and the prognostic changes of the social structure of society or of the singular social systems. A summary of the various theories can be found in Hradil (2001) and Scha¨fers (1998) or, in relation to forestry, in Schanz (1999). If one follows the supporters of modernisation theories, the deeply rooted transformation process of society in Central and Western Europe demonstrates (at least ex post) a clear direction. Extensive efforts are clearly noticeable through the innovation and reforms, which are held in place by the society’s foundation institution. The change is measured by the transformation of social institutions of the organisational system and the phenomena such as, bureaucratisation, urbanisation, democratisation and social mobility (Zapf, 1994; Zijderveld, 1998; Scha¨fers, 1998). The following processes have been indicated as the dominant development trends for social change of Germany and other comparable Central European countries:
2. Social change and lifestyle
These trends are summarised in the term of modernisation of social structure. Modernisation will not be seen as a development process, which is completely linear, exclusively seen as positive and completely internationally homogeneous. Social change takes place continuously with a different
2.1. Social change The social structure of a society or of a part of the society, such as forest owners, consists of a tradi-
. . . . .
The rationalisation and scientification of living conditions. The improvement of the standard of living and given social chances. The replacement of hard physical labour with mechanisation and automation. The division of the work and living space, or rather of work world and leisure time. Trend toward city settling and lifestyle forms and the related individualisation of lifestyle.
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
temporal and geographical dynamic, so that the shown developmental tendencies on the national and regional level can be observed in different developmental stages. Whether a society finds itself in a fast or a slow change is, therefore, not always completely clear. This is particularly so when singular parts of a society demonstrate different speeds of development. Thus, there are phenomena, which in the words of Pinder (1949) are referred to as the ‘simultaneousness of the non-simultaneous’. In the past and present people live in a traditional and modern manner to very different degrees. Additionally, group specific differences exist concerning the awareness of time, eras and the related lifestyle (Hradil, 2001; Scha¨fers, 1998). Especially, the spreading trend of city life, settling forms and the related behaviour, are in close interaction with the modernisation of the social structure. Cities and urban culture have always represented a breeding ground for societal developmental and innovative processes. Cities are simultaneously the strongest, influenced by these processes. The almost complete saturation of information technology, combined with strong interconnections through audio –visual media, means that the urban existence, as the modern form of life, is omnipresent. Nevertheless, noticeable differences still exist between urban and rural areas with respect to the population density, settlement and accessibility. Urban customs have left the city as their physical nucleus and are gradually spreading out. Social change affects all the people in a society, however, each in different ways. Therefore, it can no longer be assumed that residents of the same region show a similar sensitivity. 2.2. Lifestyle as a model The social structure within a society was categorised in the social sciences for a long time as the so called ‘strata analysis.’ This was developed by Theodor Geiger (1891 –1952) in the 1930s (Geiger, 1932). In this analysis, the population is divided into strata, where people with similar living conditions and similar inner psychological characteristics are grouped into one stratum. This model was well suited for describing, for example, the population of Germany until the 1950s. Wherein stratum
449
one belonged to was relatively easy to ascertain the given criteria profession, income, property, and social prestige. Instead of the old expression ‘stratum’ Oevermann (1993) for example uses the term ‘lifestyle’ and interprets this as the ‘anonymous, self-transformational, historically concrete, structural creation, which constructs itself as a contradictory whole from the compulsory decisions and an obligation to explain.’ Those members who belong to a certain lifestyle represent ‘in a subjective perspective the centralised autonomous units of practical trade.’ A lifestyle is constructed in the execution of decisions. An objective structure exists with these decisions, which, on one hand, excludes certain options of future trade but, on the other hand, opens up new ones. At the same time, there is no available estimation criteria for the correct or the incorrect choice, which makes the decision situation a crisis. In retrospect, there is always a reason for coming to a decision and the outcome will show whether or not it is reliable. Any person, who has ever had to make a decision, has been confronted with very certain challenges and life situations, which form a lifestyle. The society stratum membership is accurately established, on the basis of the actual function and/or activity. The model of lifestyles, or rather the former stratum analysis believes that people with similar living conditions, similar life experiences gather and are, therefore, similar in their personal structure. Typical categories for singular strata of a society were, for example, the ‘lower class,’ the ‘working class,’ ‘the farming community,’ ‘the bourgeoisie’ or ‘the elite’ (Dahrendorf, 1965). The classes were, therefore, relatively sharply divided from one another, which made itself evident among others by specific classlimited privileges or disadvantages. Here it is evident that the educational level and the consequential, usually inevitable, given profession function is an important class characteristic. Since the 1950s, or rather the 1960s, the wellknown social categories have disappeared in the course of social change. The reasons for this are the above-described repercussions of social change such as the increased social and spatial mobility, an extensive social security, and an increasing prosperity. The classes are beginning to merge into one another. However, society is still, in many respects, separable
450
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
Table 1 Schematic division of lifestyles (altered from Georg 1998: 98) Social situation
(a) Vertical characteristics: resources and restrictions . Income . Access to information . Status (b) Horizontal characteristics: social demographics . Age and sex . Region and living community
Mental level
. .
Life goals Value orientation and attitudes
Expressive behaviour
. . . .
Free time behaviour Apartment furnishings Clothes Interactive behaviour
into categories. Differences through social scientific studies must usually be arduously ‘created’, are not outwardly visible at a first glance and no longer match up to the old, well-known descriptions (Beck, 1986). Since the 1980s, due to the background in the German social structure analysis, the terms ‘lifestyle’ and ‘milieu’ have gained importance (Lu¨dtke, 1989; Schulze, 1992). The lifestyles are founded also on the distribution of resources and are, therefore, also vertically oriented like classes. They assume, however, in the framework of available resources, a horizontal freedom of choice. This is all above the freedom of an individual’s production. Lifestyle serves as the identity foundation and as the means of separation. No longer the internalisation of the outer circumstances, but rather the trivialisation of inner motives is now in the foreground (Georg, 1998). According to the dominant opinion, less and less professions are suitable as characteristics for a categorisation for the analysis of social structure. Material possessions and attitudes alone are regarded by some authors as insufficient. Rather than these characteristics, leisure time behaviour, clothes style and interior house design, which above all depict prestige significance and stylising customs, have been suggested (see Table 1). 2.3. Social change and lifestyle of private forest owners In the extensive literature about private forests, numerous categorisations, used to describe forest own-
ers, can be found. Dominant types of forest owners in the surveyed area define the approximate division. This will become clear in the division of industrial forest owners and non-industrial private forest owners (NIPFowners) in Scandinavia and the USA or the difference in farming and non-farming forest ownership in the German studies (Schraml, 2001). In further standardisations, developed from the empirical data basis, Schaffner (2001) reaches back to these three dimensions: (1) the management of forests (especially cultivation), (2) value orientation (social, economic, ecological) and (3) structure variables. The question, raised by current sociological literature, whether the social structures analysis should supplement socio-cultural components, like lifestyle, does not play a role in private forest research. However, as stated above, many arguments support the idea that the objective criteria, like profession or the individual income, have less and less influence on personal lifestyle. However, lifestyles influence actions (Hradil, 1996) and the historical changes of the private forest owner’s lifestyle seem worth pursuing. The private forest ownership, especially small private forest ownership in Germany was, up until the 1950s, usually connected with an agricultural enterprise (Abetz, 1955). In the interim, agriculture has been characterised by a continuous concentration process, which results in a decrease in the total number of agricultural businesses; numerous businesses are run part-time. Provided that the cultivation of agricultural areas were completely abandoned, agricultural and forestry business branches would
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
have to separate. According to several regional studies the majority of the small forest owners today are neither full-time nor part-time farmer or forester and their forest is not connected with self-managed farming (Schraml, 2003). With the disappearance of agriculture and the generational change into new professional fields, the change in the respective way of life continues. Only a few remaining private forest owners allow their related motives and behaviour to be assigned to the classical farmer class. When a farm is abandoned, the forest usually stays within the possession of the family. The new owners are faced with completely different circumstances, such as a change in location and social surroundings. However, both of these changes are accompanied by a clear adjustment in handed-down norms and value expectations. Interests and demands change not only in personal areas, but also in relation to forest ownership (Volz and Bieling, 1998). Especially the forestry-economical aspects of forest ownership increasingly loose meaning with this ‘new’ kind of landowner. A large part of the small private forest conveys the character of a ‘forestry wasteland’ (Volz, 2001), because the respective generation has distanced itself mentally, technically and spatially from its possession. In contrast, it has been determined that increasing numbers of forest owners have discovered their forest as a hobby and free time activity (Judmann, 1998). The lifestyles of the new private forest owners have proven to be very heterogeneous in every respect. This is also evident in their demands and goals of the forest property. The new, often seen as ‘urban,’ forest owners (although the term ‘urban’ should simply express the process of modernisation and urbanisation, not a spatial attachment to the city) do not allow for a concrete classification to a certain class. They can be found in (almost) all sectors of the population (Schraml and Ha¨rdter, 2002). In the course of social change, lifestyles go, as mentioned above, through a process of transformation. The knowledge of different forest owner types in terms of lifestyles—‘old’ types and new ones as well as the ones going through an actual transformation process—can be very rewarding regarding the possibility of making prognoses. This means, if a certain lifestyle can be determined exactly in its social structures, it must also be possible to forecast what will happen towards the behaviour of people, assuming
451
special inexperienced new situations occur or special changes in their everyday-life take place.
3. The classical structure: farm forest owners in the Central Black Forest The focal point of a research project by Ziegenspeck (2001) was an investigation of the farms in the Black Forest, which, due to the inheritance laws, have been handed down through generations for centuries. These farms, largely due to the (agricultural) structural change, find themselves in an existence crisis. The problem definition, which forms the basis of this research, was derived from an evaluation of the specific existence crisis situations and the previous research. The research project looks into the question of which structures characterise the lifestyle of the farmers and which principles in the way of prognostic information can be recommended or have to be considered to secure the existence of the farming forester, taking into consideration the variable of social lifestyle of farm forest owners. The area under investigation in the Central Black Forest covers approximately 1 660 km2. The research design of this study was divided into a qualitative and a quantitative empirical part. The purpose of the two-part concept was, in the first step, to analyse the quality of life and to generate appropriate hypotheses. In the second step, the determined typical lifestyle-structures were examined with regard to generalisations and used for verification. With the qualitative study, the ‘objective hermeneutics’ method was used. Under the term of objective hermeneutics, Oevermann et al. (1979) developed a reconstructive method of latent sense structure. The method of ‘objective hermeneutics’ belongs to the category of reconstructive methods, in opposite definition to the subsumtive process. From these interviews, with a so called ‘typological central case’ (a family that runs its farm as full-time enterprise) and many other case examples (e.g. a farm that was stroke massively a storm, a farm that is run as half-time enterprise, a farm that is run by a non-married farmer, a farm that is operated under ecological certification), the research was conducted as a structural analytical typification of the respective farm forester families and their lifestyles.
452
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
In the empirical statistical research part, the structure-hypotheses, generated using these cases, were submitted in the form of items of a written survey of a large farm forester collective. The socio-demographical statements from Table 2 clearly show that the 343 questioned farmers and foresters noticeably differ from the German (mostly ‘non-farming’) population. Besides the study offers results at further levels. First, how the structural scheme of the farm forester community is characterised, was determined. The lifestyle of the farm forestry community in the farming area of the Black Forest is very homogenous and is characterised above all by the following structures: a high need for self-sufficiency; a strong environmental conscience; a desire for an effective use of income; an increasing individualistic lifestyle; a high significance of cultural rationality; a high degree of attachment to the home region; the preference of a full-time farm orientation; and the need for acceptance of autonomy along with a very characteristic need for autonomy. Altogether, the main structure of this lifestyle can be determined as a high desire, and need of independence and a strong aspiration for selfsufficiency. In this context Table 3 clearly shows that above all in the full-time, but even in the part-time farms, forestry contributes a sizeable proportion to the income. In the research project of Ziegenspeck (2001) introduced here, prognoses and their meanings for
Table 2 Socio-demographical data of farm-foresters from the Central Black Forest (343 questioned) and the German Population (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2001), given in percentage
Family situation Single Married Divorced Widowed Other Number of Children Childless One Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children and more
Forest owner
Households in Germany
14 82 2 1 1
22 54 9 15 –
16 10 24 28 22
47 26 20 5 2
Table 3 Total division income from full-time and part-time farms from the Central Black Forest (mean values for both collectives (343 surveyed), given in percentage Sources of income
Full-time farms
Part-time farms
Forestry Agriculture Direct marketing Service sector Tourism Independent work Other
35.59 39.42 6.08 1.37 7.36 — 9.18
21.15 10.55 3.43 3.17 6.04 20.02 35.64
policy extension are derived from the social factor ‘lifestyle’ and by the special structures it is formed of. Proceeding from the determination of structural hypotheses a theoretical derivation is made, that states how the structures can possibly and on principle be considered in political thoughts and concepts. Some of the main prognoses deviated in the research project ‘farm foresters in the Black-Forest’ are listed below. 3.1. Warranty of autonomy Autonomy is one of the main characteristic values of the family farm foresters in the Black Forest. Any concepts, which deal with the existence situation of these families, do have, and this builds the prognosis, to consider this value. This means, that concepts have to contain elements that enable the families to run their farm in terms of a farreaching, greatest possible self-sufficiency. Political interventions from outside, that restrict the structure of autonomy, should rather be avoid or at least it can be stated, that prognosticly such restrictions minder the motivation of the families to go on with farming and silviculture. 3.2. Warranty of effective land-use Farm foresters cannot be ‘used’ to fulfil their ‘job’ as kind of a ‘cultural landscape maintenance employee’. One of the structures in the life of farm foresters, that could be detected, was the structure of expedient production. Farm foresters are motivated to fulfil an effective land-use with the purpose to
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
produce goods that can be sold. The prognosis is, therefore, that the element of using nature in an effective and reasonable (in terms of a land-use that answers the purpose) way is mandatory for the families and has to be considered in any concepts for securing their existence. 3.3. Steadiness and constancy of policy Running a farm has to do to a great part with taking risks. On the one hand, the farmers are very willing to accept this, especially if they earn self-sufficiency in return. On the other hand, the manager of a farm has to be able to calculate to a minimum these risks. Especially for the farm foresters in the Black Forest it
453
is most important to be able to calculate in long periods. This means as a prognosis also, that policy measures have to be implemented as kinds of longterm instruments that enable farm foresters to rely to a certain degree on them. The landowners must be enabled to make as reliable appraisals as possible about the development in the future. As far as the farmers are not convinced about the steadiness of a certain measure, they would not make appropriate adaptations. The gain of this new approach in the field of forest owner typology can be comprehensively described as following: This research project creates a better awareness and understanding of the farming forest owners’ mentality. Thereby, it supplies numerous, far-
Fig. 1. Urban Orientation of forest owners. Comparison of total sample, non-farming persons, full-time farmers and spare-time farmers on a scale with a range of values from 0 to 58.
454
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
reaching, safeguarded prognoses for possible outside interventions.
4. The new diversity: urban orientation of forest owners The second research project presented here aims in the long run to analyse the social structure of the (nonfarming) small private forest owners, focusing also urban oriented people. Specifically the extent of urbanisation of the small private forest owners as a new lifestyle dimension should be summarised qualitatively and quantitatively. The results will help to range in the presented data about farm foresters in the wider context of forest owner life styles in a larger region. The study covered the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg in total, an area of 35 751 km2, with an approximated 260 000 people owning private forests. A random sampling was drawn on the bases of the State Forest Service’s forest owner card index. The random sample (net) consisted of 1 111 persons with forest property in Baden-Wuerttemberg selected by indices from the map of the public forest management. Six hundred persons were interviewed which corresponds to an exhaustion of the net sample of 54%. In a first step, the examined persons were separated by means of suitable filter variables into farming and non-farming forest owners. 14.5% were identified as full-time farmers, 39% as part-time farmers and 46.5% as non-farming (‘civic’) forest owners. As mentioned before the empirical access to the until now to a large extent unexplored collective of ‘nonfarming’ forest owners was led by the theoretical remarks of modernisation and urbanisation. These factor complexes were consulted for the explanation of the specific reference of the non-farming forest owners to their forest. The realisation was made by the theory-led construction of a scale for the evaluation of urban orientation in order to realise a meaningful structuring of the investigated collective. The scale based on 29 items contained as specific questions in the questionnaire, which were added to the total scale after factor-analytic investigation. On the one hand, the particular items were deduced from theoretical consideration and inquiry, on the other hand deduced from the ‘Allensbacher Market and
Advertising Medium Analysis’ (Institut fuer Demoskopie Allensbach, 2001). In detail the items were assigned to the following characteristics: – – – – – – –
Characteristic: spatial/temporal mobility, Characteristic: spare time, Characteristic: education, Characteristic: interests, Characteristic: consumption, Characteristic: media and communication, and Personal characteristics.
First, it could be stated that the theoretically accepted continuum of urban orientation is existent within the entire investigation collective with sufficient normal distribution by a mean value of 20 (Fig. 1). Regarding the urban orientation of farming and non-farming forest owners significant differences result between these three person groups. Full-time farmers present themselves as a quite homogeneous collective on a rather low level (mean=15) of urban orientation. The non-farming forest owners feature urban orientation on a middle level (mean=22) and spread nearly over the whole possible range of scalevalues and, therefore can be characterised as a heterogeneous collective regarding the urban orientation. Part-time farmers at large take a middle position between full-time farmers and non-farmers (mean=19) but regarding their distribution of scale-values they also can be characterised as heterogeneous (Fig. 1, Table 4). For the purpose of further analysis the three examined person groups were divided in each case on the basis of their scale values into quartiles of different urban orientation. The classification represents four Table 4 Urban orientation of forest owners. Comparison of total sample, non-farming persons, full-time farmers and spare-time farmers on a scale with a range of values from 0 to 58
N Mean S.D. Range
Total sample
Non-farming persons
Full-time farmers
Spare-time farmers
522 20 9.07 46
243 22 9.27 46
75 15 7.41 32
204 19 8.56 41
Analysis of variance: significant differences of means between the groups on the P=0.000 level (d.f.=2, F=20.47).
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
successive intervals of the scale ‘Urban Orientation’ whereas in the interpretation the interval borders were regarded as floating and not as static (according to the theoretical continuum). Within the following discussion of selected results (regarding some special theoretical aspects) the four nuances of the scale ‘Urban Orientation’ were reduced to two groups of nonfarming forest owners: 1 ‘Non-farming forest owners with a rather low degree of urban orientation’—in brief: traditional forest owners (40% of all examined non-farming forest owners). 2 ‘Non-farming forest owners with an explicit degree of urban orientation’—in brief: urban forest owners (60% of all examined non-farming forest owners). Relating to the remarks of social development tendencies and changes within the collective ‘small scale forest owners’ these people are affected particularly by the impacts of social modernisation and urbanisation without having to live inevitably in the city (Schraml and Ha¨rdter, 2002). Within the investigation the presumption could be confirmed that the non-farming forest owners differ from the farming forest owners in their relationship with the own forests in various regards. This has to be considered particularly before the background that non-farming forest owners are able to put commitment for the forest property in any form into practise only during their spare time. Generally, spare time for these persons is time outside occupation, i.e. is reserved for private life and consumption and is thus particularly important for the personal well-being. Accordingly, they differ from the farming forest owners because production (in terms of occupation) and consumption (in terms of private life) are usually separated spatially and temporarily. As (countrywide) socio-cultural investigations confirm the organisation of spare time as well as the subjectively noticed extent of leisure time differ to a high degree depending upon age and income group. Despite strongly shortened weekly hours of work with employed persons in the age between 30 and 55 years the subjectively noticed extent of leisure-time usually is running short since it is taken up by many factors, e.g. family, friends, personal interests or leisure activities etc. and additionally by various personal obligations. At present,
455
however, the dominance of spending one’s leisure in an activity-oriented way is generally realised. Referring to this the income situation is also of importance for the mode of leisure activities (Scho¨b, 2000; Mu¨ller-Schneider, 2001). In reference to forest property, this means in the case of non-farming or ‘civic’ forest owners interest and commitment have to be seen in competition to the everyday factors of leisure activities. Apart from the usual distinction into farming and non-farming forest owners the latter were structured additional on their basis of their urban orientation. In this regard a significant statistic connection with the factors ‘age’ and ‘net income of the household’ exists (Ha¨rdter, 2003). Beyond that a close theoretically justified connection between urban orientation and the sphere of life spare-time exists (Mu¨ller-Schneider, 2001). Furthermore it cannot be presumed for the whole collective of non-farming forest owners that these persons lost interest and personal relation to their forest property in the whole. Quite contrary to this there are indices for a motivated and engaged relationship between non-farming forest owners and their property, independent of the respective degree of urban orientation. However, the relationship is usually not shaped in the classical forest-economical sense by pecuniary reward by means of wood production. Rather the picture confirmed is drawn in the theoretical frame of reference as an effect of social modernisation processes. Regarding the forest property of the non-farming owners (which represents in the ‘classic forest’ way a property for production) it could be realised that with an increasing degree of urban orientation an increasing dominance of the ethos of consumption over the ethos of work or production is involved. Thus with the majority of the examined non-farming forest owners the forest property changed from a property of production to a property of consumption with the purpose to primarily satisfy the individual, personal and emotional needs (recovery, nature protection, pride) of the owner. Further it should not be assumed that on the part of the nonfarming forest owners personal input and/or commitment for the ‘green’ property takes place from a ‘social’ or ‘common’ responsibility or can be motivated from ‘outside’. Financial expenditure and personal commitment may only be expected, if these either stay within a limit, serve as personal leisure
456
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
activities or get adopted by third persons or institutions. In principle, time and money can be regarded as the two central resources of the non-farming forest owners. Therefore, the forest property competes against other spheres of everyday life, respectively, leisure time for time and money.
5. Conclusions The idea that social change can provide an important explanation for the social structure of forest owners and its change has long been developing in forest policy research. Above all, behavioural and attitudinal structure have a big influence on how forests are handled by the owners and what forestry achieves for the development of the rural areas. The research so far observes above all the change from an agrarian lifestyle of the forest owners to ‘non-farm’ forms of living and refers to the comparison between agriculturalists and nonagriculturalists. From the contribution of empirical research about the forest owners, the authors have determined that a one-sided orientation towards professions in the description of forest owners creates unsatisfactory results. The research shows unanimously that only a small part of the forest owners get their income from forestry or agriculture. The criteria of forest owners‘ urbanity show a high diversity in important characteristics like receiving information and time budgeting, which can be accepted as prerequisite for the personal management of forests and the implementation of political programmes (Bittner and Ha¨rdter, 2003). Primarily as for time budgeting it is important to distinguish between farmers and non-farmers. Nonfarmers are able to care about their forest only in spare time. For these persons spare time is normally out of occupation, i.e. it is reserved to private life, recreation and consumption (which often means the same) and is therefore important for personal well-being. Analogical these people differ from farmers due to the fact that production (in terms of occupation) and consumption, respectively, private life and recreation are separated spatiotemporal. The form and amount of spending one’s spare time depend on facts as age of life, occupation, education, income and last but not
least modernisation of everyday life (Mu¨ llerSchneider, 2001). The analyses also show that a distinction is necessary. The study about the farm foresters in the Central Black Forest illustrates a high regional significance of wood production income in a certain group. The existential dependence on wood production exists here, which also reflects the lifestyle of those surveyed. The lifestyles are not completely freely chosen, but rather are specified by the profession, for example the dependence on family labour or limited mobility due to farm work. The authors believe that the term lifestyle, which became popular in sociology during the 1980s and 1990s, seems well suited for describing, also from a horizontal perspective, the structure and for creating different statements about the social structure of forest owners and even about ‘traditional’ and ‘urban’ structures. When one wants to describe or influence forestry practice on the basis of manners and attitudes, research about forest owners is of fundamental importance. Lifestyles are action theory based and, therefore, especially well suited for explaining how good forestry or other forms of forest practice fits into the life of a forest owner (Bittner and Ha¨rdter, 2003). If necessary, they would prefer this to a pure attitude analysis, which for example would emphasise the protection or use orientation and would use this to derive a forest practice. This brings up the question of the reproduction of lifestyles. One challenge, which due to the strong correlation between the lifestyle of farm foresters and the achievement of the political goals, aims for a mid-range retention of cultural landscapes. The presented research about the lifestyles of the farm forester describes the enormous effort of those affected to, when not conserve, at least reform the farm forester lifestyle to preserve it for the next generation. When the active efforts of many forest owners, classified as having a strongly urban oriented lifestyle are hardly perceptible, many forest owners refer to their own socialisation in the farming family. This explains, for example, the positive attitude towards wood use. The analysis of the lifestyles simultaneously produces evidence as to why the increased mobility leads to an absence of time in the daily or annual routine for forest management. These are starting points for practical forest policy to
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
formulate programmes, which suit the lifestyles of the forest owners.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the Ministry of Food and Rural Areas Baden-Wuerttemberg (MLR) for funding the studies.
References Abetz, K., 1955. Ba¨uerliche Waldwirtschaft Paul Parey, Berlin. Beck, U., 1986. Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Edition Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. Bittner, A., Ha¨rdter, U., 2003. Empirische Realita¨t und Modellierung motivationaler Bedingungen informationeller forstpolitischer Instrumente im nichtba¨ uerlichen Kleinprivatwald. Allgemeine Forst und Jagd Zeitschrift, in press. Dahrendorf, R., 1965. Gesellschaft und Demokratie in Deutschland. Piper, Mu¨nchen. Geiger, Th., 1932. Die soziale Schichtung des deutschen Volkes: Soziographischer Versuch auf statistischer Grundlage. Enke, Stuttgart. Georg, W., 1998. Soziale Lage und Lebensstil: eine Typologie. Leske und Budrich, Opladen. Ha¨rdter, U., 2003. Nichtba¨uerliche Waldbesitzer – Strukturierung und Charakterisierung im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungstrends. In: Schraml, U., Volz, K.-R. (Eds.): Urbane Waldbesitzer-Studien zur Beratung und Betreuung im nichtba¨uerlichen Kleinprivatwald. Freiburger Schriften zur Forstund Umweltpolitik Institut fu¨r Forstpolitik, Albert-LudwigsUniversita¨t Freiburg, Band 1. Freiburg, pp. 25 – 83. Hradil, S., 1996. Sozialstruktur und Kultur. Fragen und Antworten zu einem schwierigen Verha¨ltnis. In: Schwenk, O.G. (Ed.), Lebensstil zwischen Sozialstrukturanalyse und Kulturwissenschaft Vol. 7. Leske u. Budrich, Opladen, pp. 14 – 30. Schriftenreihe ‘Sozialstrukturanalyse’. Hradil, S., 2001. Sozialer Wandel. Gesellschaftliche Entwicklungstrends. In: Scha¨fers, B., Zapf, W. (Eds.), Handwo¨rterbuch zur Gesellschaft Deutschlands. Lizenzausgabe fu¨r die Bundeszentrale fu¨r politische Bildung, Bonn. Leske u. Budrich, Opladen, pp. 642 – 653. Institut fuer Demoskopie Allensbach (Ed.), 2001. Allensbacher Marktanalyse, Werbetraegeranalyse (AWA 2000). Allensbach. Judmann, F., 1998. Die Einstellung von Kleinprivatwaldeigentu¨mern zu ihrem Wald. Eine vergleichende Studie zwischen Baden-Wu¨rttemberg und dem US-Bundesstaat Pennsylvania. Diss. Univ. Freiburg. Karpinnen, H., 1998. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica 32 (1), 43 – 59. Koch, N.E., Rasmussen, J.N., 1998. Forestry in the Context of
457
Rural Development: Final Report of COST Action E 3. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Horsholm. Lee, K.J., 1997. Hedonic estimation of forest amenity values of non-industrial private landowners. Diss. Univ. North Carolina, Raleigh. Lo¨nnstedt, L., 1997. Non-industrial private forest owner’s decision process: a qualitative study about goals, time perspective, opportunities and alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 12 (3), 302 – 310. Lu¨dtke, H., 1989. Expressive Ungleichheit. Zur Soziologie der Lebensstile. Leske u. Budrich, Opladen. Mu¨ller-Schneider, Th., 2001. Freizeit und Erholung. In: Scha¨fers, W., Zapf, W. (Eds.), Handwo¨rterbuch zur Gesellschaft Deutschlands. Lizenzausgabe fu¨r die Bundeszentrale fu¨r politische Bildung, Bonn. Leske u. Budrich, Opladen, pp. 227 – 237. Oevermann, U., Allert, T., Konau, E., Krambeck, J., 1979. In: Soeffner, H.G. (Ed.), Die Methodologie einer ‘objektiven Hermeneutik’ und ihre allgemeine forschungslogische Bedeutung in den Sozialwissenschaften. Interpretative Verfahren in Sozialund Textwissenschaften. Stuttgart, pp. 352 – 434. Oevermann, U., 1993. Wirklichkeit im Deutungsprozeß. In: Jung, Th., Mu¨ller-Dohm, St. (Eds.), Verstehen und Methoden in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Pinder, W., 1949. Aussagen zur Kunst. Gesammelt von Hildegard v. Barloewen. Ma¨ander, Mu¨nchen, pp. 1993 Reprint of the edition Ko¨ln 1949. Scha¨fers, B., 1998. Sozialstruktur und sozialer Wandel in Deutschland. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart. Schaffner, S., 2001. Realisierung von Holzvorra¨ten im Kleinprivatwald – Typen von Kleinprivatwaldbesitzern und deren Verhalten bezu¨glich Waldbewirtschaftung und Nutzungsaufkommen. Diss. Techn. Univ. Mu¨nchen. Schanz, H., 1999. Social changes and forestry. In: Pelkonen P., Pitkanen A., Schmidt P., Oesten G., Piussi P., Rojas E. (Eds.), Forestry in changing societies in Europe. Part 1, pp. 59 – 82. Scho¨b, A., 2000. Gesellschaftliche Beteiligung und Freizeit. Statistisches Bundesamt: Datenreport 1999. Bundeszentrale fu¨r politische Bildung, Bonn. Schraml, U., 2001. Diskurs u¨ber Eigentum – eine Tradition des Verneinens. Discourse about property – a tradition of negations. Forst und Holz 22, 726 – 729. Schraml, U., Ha¨rdter, U., 2002. Urbanita¨t von Waldbesitzern und von Personen ohne Waldeigentum. Folgerungen aus einer Bevo¨lkerungsbefragung in Deutschland. Allgemeine Forst und Jagd Zeitschrift 173 (7/8), 140 – 146. Schraml, U., 2003. Urbane Waldbesitzer in Forschung und Forstpolitik. In: Schraml, U., Volz, K.R. (Eds.), Urbane Waldbesitzer. Studien zur Beratung und Betreuung im nichtba¨uerlichen Kleinprivatwald, Freiburger Schriften zur Forst- und Umweltpolitik Vol. 1. Verlag Dr. Kessel, Remagen, pp. 1 – 25. Schulze, G., 1992. Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart. Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt/M. Statistisches Bundesamt, 2001. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2001 fu¨r die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel. Volz, K.-R., Bieling, A., 1998. Zur Soziologie des Kleinprivatwaldes. Forst und Holz 3, 67 – 71.
458
S. Ziegenspeck et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 6 (2004) 447–458
Volz, K.-R., 2001. Wem geho¨rt eigentlich der Wald? Der Bu¨rger im Staat. Der deutsche Wald. Landeszentrale fu¨r politische Bildung, Baden-Wu¨rttemberg 1, 51 – 58. Zapf, W., 1994. Modernisierung, Wohlfahrtsentwicklung und Transformation. Edition Sigma, Berlin. Ziegenspeck, S., 2001. Die Lebenspraxis der Waldbauern. Eine Untersuchung der waldba¨uerlichen Lebenspraxis im Gebiet
der geschlossenen Hofgu¨ter des Schwarzwaldes sowie die Ableitung von Prognosen fu¨r politische Existenzsicherungskonzepte. Diss. Univ. Freiburg. Zijderveld, A.C., 1998. A Theory of Urbanity – The Economic and Civic Culture of Cities. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.